2nd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr (was: rec.photo.dslr)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Thad, Sep 3, 2004.

  1. Thanks, Alan. I went and looked up the review and indeed the lens is
    fixed.

    But it would fit into the ZLR (Zoom Lens Reflex) category, wouldn't it?

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Sep 5, 2004
    #81
    1. Advertisements

  2. I'd read 100% the regs of rec.photo.digital were killfiling "Anastasia"
    and all crossposted threads - better try nFilter, Thad:

    http://www.nfilter.org





    --
    http://www.bedoper.com/snuh



    -------
    / \
    / \ /-----\
    | (@) | | SnuH |
    | (O) | \_ ___/
    | / | ||
    | \ /_ / //
    \ \____/ / /
    \ /
    \_____,
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?=B1?=, Sep 5, 2004
    #82
    1. Advertisements

  3. Be still! and revere ±, who blessed us with their presence on 05 Sep
    2004...
    How dare people diss Anastacia!

    --
    The Reverend Parson Peter Parsnip
    VISIT ME ONLINE AT: http://peterparsnip.blogspot.com/

    "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with
    the rod, he shall not die." -- Proverbs 23:13 (AV)
     
    Vicar Peter Parsnip, Sep 5, 2004
    #83
  4. It's awful - isn't it?





    --
    http://www.bedoper.com/snuh



    -------
    / \
    / \ /-----\
    | (@) | | SnuH |
    | (O) | \_ ___/
    | / | ||
    | \ /_ / //
    \ \____/ / /
    \ /
    \_____,
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?=B1?=, Sep 5, 2004
    #84
  5. Be still! and revere ±, who blessed us with their presence on 05 Sep
    2004...
    Very much so. They should show more respect to one of the Greatest Threads
    in Usenet's History.

    --
    The Reverend Parson Peter Parsnip
    VISIT ME ONLINE AT: http://peterparsnip.blogspot.com/

    "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with
    the rod, he shall not die." -- Proverbs 23:13 (AV)
     
    Vicar Peter Parsnip, Sep 5, 2004
    #85
  6. Respect - Boyakasha!




    --
    http://www.bedoper.com/snuh



    -------
    / \
    / \ /-----\
    | (@) | | SnuH |
    | (O) | \_ ___/
    | / | ||
    | \ /_ / //
    \ \____/ / /
    \ /
    \_____,
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?=B1?=, Sep 5, 2004
    #86
  7. Thad

    andrew29 Guest

    I have no idea what the Sony 828 has to do with any of this -- it has
    an electronic viewfindwer. The Olympus E20 seems to be the
    pre-eminient example of a digital SLR that doesn't have exchangable
    lenses.

    Andrew.
     
    andrew29, Sep 5, 2004
    #87
  8. Thad

    andrew29 Guest

    It hasn't. The argument seems to revolve around "what shall we call
    it?"

    I'm not saying that the name is bad. The name is prefectly OK.

    I'm saying that the refusal to allow discussion of non-exchangable
    SLRs is bizarre and unreasonable. What is gained by excluding, for
    example, the Olympus E20?

    Besides, what about other kinds of digital cameras? Digital view
    cameras, for example?

    Andrew.
     
    andrew29, Sep 5, 2004
    #88
  9. Thad

    andrew29 Guest

    Cameras without a reflex mirror are not SLRs, digital or otherwise.
    Were we talking about them?
    Well, I have no argument with that.
    I have seen no argument for disallowing digital SLRs without
    exchangeable lenses. However, I may have missed the posting where
    this was explained. If you can point me to it, perhaps by a Google
    URL, I will be grateful.
    I can see that. I'm asking why. These cameras certainly have
    exchangeable lenses.

    Andrew.
     
    andrew29, Sep 5, 2004
    #89
  10. Thad

    edward ohare Guest


    It is up to the proponents to estimate how the newsgroup will be used
    by those who find it. Charters cannot include or exclude topics.
    Users decide what is topical by the topics they discuss.

    As someone else posted, people find groups by the name. They post
    mostly according to the name and by what other discussion is present.

    Considering these factors, the vision of the proponents for the group
    should match what can be expected based on the previous paragraph.
    They are not creating a group for themselves; they are creating one
    for those who will find it. The Charter should match their best
    estimate of the interests of these people. If there is a mismatch,
    its the Charter, not the users, which is wrong.
     
    edward ohare, Sep 5, 2004
    #90
  11. Thad

    edward ohare Guest


    My point here being that if it is reasonably predictable that zlr
    will, by user choice, be a substantial topic, then include it from the
    beginning.
     
    edward ohare, Sep 5, 2004
    #91
  12. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    My Max 9 does too, but when I enter that mode (almost never) the
    camera can still take various lenses, still has a spotmeter and
    an optical viewfinder, still does manual focus, still has exp and
    flash comp, etc... still weighs a ton too. So even in "P" mode
    these cameras are far more versatile than the best "p+s" camera.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 5, 2004
    #92
  13. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    Another term is "SLR-like" from the pages of dpreview...

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 5, 2004
    #93
  14. What is wrong with r.p.d.interchangable-lens (if I spelled
    it correctly)? If you define "SLR" as "camera with
    interchangable lenses", which is apparently the common,
    but not the technical, definition, ....

    That wasn't brought up in the prior round.
     
    Arthur L. Rubin, Sep 5, 2004
    #94
  15. Thad

    Thad Guest

    That might make an OK name for a newsgroup about lenses - not about
    DSLRs.
    Yes, it was, more than once.
     
    Thad, Sep 5, 2004
    #95
  16. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    Thad is a past participant in rpe35mm and could be considered to
    be an enthusiastic, not very experienced amateur for film and
    likewise, now, for digital as he has made that transition. He is
    above newbie, IOW, as a photographer.

    GADZOOKS! Can we let this happen? A non proficient photographer
    leading the charge for a new newsgroup?

    Not only YES, but HELL!! YES!! It is photographers such as Thad
    who, while seriously interested and willing to do the research,
    are bewildered (or discouraged) by the traffic in a group such as
    rpd in its current state. He represents a healthy cross section
    of NG participants who will greatly benefit from the new NG.
    NG's are not for the experts alone, they are for everyone with an
    interest in the subject. Thad is bringing passionate interest to
    the group formation and his experience as a photographer does not
    affect the value of the proposal at all IMO. Also, while I
    believe many in the rpd have felt that it is becoming a burden to
    browse, none other have pressed for change. Thad has taken the
    initiative and leadership to do so. He is the right stuff.

    Speaking for myself, I don't even own a digital camera and I've
    taken less than 100 digital shots over the past 5 years... but I
    am of course very interested, and I've learned a lot from the rpd
    participants. When I do finally get a digital body I will have
    benefitted from the experiences of all you good leaders! But
    that doesn't stop me from signing on to help with the proposed NG
    as it will make NG life easier for me as well as everyone with an
    interest in d.slr's.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 5, 2004
    #96
  17. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    The very point of the formation of the new NG is to create a
    place for a rather large number of posts that are bounded by a
    defintiion of what is appropriate to that group.

    As has been mentioned many times up to now, the criteria are
    based on certain attributes of a certain kind of camera. The
    people that the new NG is expected to attract are certainly, in
    the main, little interested in view cameras, and largely not
    interested in ZLR (bridge cameras).

    Recognizing that a lot of current ZLR owners/users might have
    more than a passing interest in "true" SLR style digital cameras,
    their participation in the new NG is not only welcome but
    encouraged... while respecting the bounds of the proposed charter.

    rpd will remain active of course and be the right place for the
    ZLR's ... and I know that one person is currently taking a good
    look at forming a ZLR group (whatever the name might eventually be).

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 5, 2004
    #97
  18. Alan Browne wrote:
    []
    Thanks, Alan.

    I wasn't expecting such a full reply. My own 35mm days (with Nikon SLRs
    and many lenses from 20mm to 500mm) pre-date Usenet, as I changed over to
    digital in 1998 and have never felt the need to take a 35mm frame since!
    (I did remember to remove the batteries from my 35mm cameras and
    accesories, though).

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Sep 5, 2004
    #98
  19. Right there in your own words is one of the major problems. And you
    didn't. It's also inconveniently long.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 5, 2004
    #99
  20. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    Your meaning is very clear. But contrary to the proposed charter.

    ZLR's, as wonderful as they can be, are not compatible with the
    intent of SLR system cameras. A major topic of dicsussion in
    DSLR is lens choice by function, quality and manufacturer.

    ZLR's tend to have small sensors v. the SLR bodies. So
    discsussions about image quality will not be very compatible...
    eg: the resolution and noise levels will be very different.

    They _are_ a different breed of camera, no more like SLR's than
    ZLR's are like p+s.

    IAC, I know that someone is looking at proposing a zlr group (by
    name tbd), so that community will be well served. As always,
    everyone is welcome in the other groups for whatever well
    intentioned reason that is compatible with the respective charters.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 5, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.